Luther and Lutheranism

Martin Luther was eight years old when Christopher Columbus set sail from Europe and landed in the Western Hemisphere. Luther was a young monk and priest when Michaelangelo was painting the Sistine Chapel in Rome...

ELCA Good Gifts Catalog

Assignment Process

Assignment completes candidacy for all people, including those ordained in another Lutheran church or Christian tradition, moving them toward first call and admittance to the appropriate roster in the ELCA...

Joint Observance

The ELCA Conference of Bishops' Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Liaison Committee and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs Committee commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation by signing a joint statement during a Lutheran-Catholic service of Common Prayer.

Reformation 500

Martin Luther posted his “Ninety-Five Theses” in Wittenberg on Oct. 31, 1517, and the resulting debate about Christian teaching and practice led to changes that have shaped the course of Western Christianity for almost 500 years.

Naming What is at Stake

Hans Tiefel

10/01/2001

[1] In her reflections on the recent terror, Karen Bloomquist
writes, "An adequate response by the churches needs to begin with a
clear theological naming of what is at stake." That strikes me as
insightful and fruitful for our shared deliberations. Of course
these events came already named as acts of terror. Terrorism means
targeting and attacking non-combatants - practices condemned by
just war criteria. The word not only describes, but also condemns.
As such, its use is justified to describe the events of September
11th. The condemning quality of this word necessitates alternatives
and euphemisms when our military actions destroy non-military
targets and kill civilians. We call that "collateral damage" and
insist that such was not our intent. Even when the killing of
non-combatants is intended, as in these recent horrendous events,
our attackers surely used other words with different moral meanings
and coloration. While the word "terrorism" is fitting for these
horrific acts, it will not help us to understand why we were
attacked. To understand reasoning of our attackers - not to share
or endorse it - we will have to know their word(s) and
justifications.

[2] If these attacks on our nation are justifiably designated as
terrorism, then measures to defend ourselves might be called
counter- or anti-terrorism. As best I know, this has been the
practice in countries who have long suffered under such acts, in
particular Israel and the British in Northern Ireland. By contrast,
our own administration and press decided to use the word "war." We
are at war! And that is not the metaphorical use of the word, as
were the war on poverty and the war on drugs or on cancer. Although
everyone acknowledges that this war is unique, in terms of
identifying our enemy, of the manner of fighting and of ending this
conflict, we have declared it to be war.

[3] Our declaration of war may in effect redefine large-scale
terrorism as acts of war. The continuing large losses of Iraqi
non-combatant lives, women and children, to American bombing and
embargo is not designated as terror. At least not by those who
practice it. Our long-standing policy of nuclear deterrence
threatens to obliterate whole nations, in effect obscuring any
distinctions between combatants and civilians. We refuse to call
that terrorism. And despite the moral limits of just war doctrine
we stand ready, if we are attacked, to wage "nuclear war." So
terrorism, the indiscriminate targeting and destroying of
non-combatants can be called war, if the stakes are large
enough.

[4] We should stick with the words "terrorism" and
"counter-terrorism" and eschew "war" for a number of reasons.
First, if we and our allies prove to be successful in identifying
and capturing those responsible for these acts of terror, we should
treat them as criminals and not as prisoners of war. Second, we
should not honor terrorists as soldiers. Only the latter
legitimately honor and serve country and even God (if one does not
advocate pacifism). There will be no end to our declarations of war
if we identify every country that shelters terrorists as our
enemy.

[5] We may well rob ourselves of flexibility, options, and
limits if we insist on "war." If we invoke "war," we will have war.
We will then need to find an enemy to confront and to fight. We
will have justified major military violence against our opponents.
We will have to rally to a common war effort and be ready both to
inflict and to suffer the consequences of war. We will have
established the priority of warfare over all our other needs and
responsibilities, for the necessities of war effort overshadow all
the values over which we struggle politically. We will need to
circumscribe our liberties with adequate security measures. Even if
all of these costs are justified, we need to ask whether our
country can defend itself under a less incendiary banner.

[6] While these key words now literally become a matter of life
and death, none of this seems like a theological naming of what is
at stake. Perhaps the Christian calling to be peacemakers can take
linguistic form. If as a people we now define what we are about and
if our future is shaped by those concepts, then a Christian witness
should insist on words compatible with justice and amenable to
limiting death. It is not self-evident that we also should cry,
"War!"

This is Christ's church.

There is a place for you here.

We are the church that shares a living, daring confidence in God's grace. Liberated by our faith, we embrace you as a whole person--questions, complexities and all. Join us as we do God's work in Christ's name for the life of the world.